V/k/ng Mars Lander 1975 Dynamic Test Mode//Orb/ter Deve ... · Model Forced Vibration Test Summary Report J. Fortenberry G. R. Brownlee JET PROPULSION LABORATORY CALIFORNIA INSTITUTE

) f !

I

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION

Technical Memorandum 33-689

V/k/ng Mars Lander 1975 Dynamic Test

Mode//Orb/ter Deve/opmenta/ TestMode/Forced V/brat/on Test

Summary Report 1

J. Fortenberry6. R. Brownlee

'%

<

_ (NASA-CR-lqCE[,!) VIKING t-!A_5 LA_DEf 1975 N75-1202_

D_ANIC '_ES_ M;JEL/OEgiTg;; DEqFLOt;i'I_'I_AL_IESI ,MOD_L FC[_CgD V_f_kAilC_ C_;[

Summary Pe_ogt (Jet P_ODU_,iiOrl Ld_l.) UIctc_s

_5 p IIC bq.)b CSCL 22g G3/I_ 13572

JET PROPULSION LABORATORYCALIFORNIA |N|T|TUTE OF TECHNOLOGY

I PAIIAOENA, CALIFORNIA

November15,1974

\

1975003956

https://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=19750003956 2018-07-16T12:18:36+00:00Z

I!

8

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION

Technical Memorandum 33-689

Viking Mars Lander 1975 Dynamic Test

Model/Orbiter Developmental TestModel Forced Vibration Test

Summary Report

J. Fortenberry

G. R. Brownlee

JET PROPULSION LABORATORY

CALIFORNIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY

PASADENA, CALIFORNIA

November15, 1974

1975003956-002

' TECHNICAL REPORTSTANDARD TITLE PAGE

I. Report No. 33-(_9 2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient's Catalog No.

4. Title and Subtitle 5. Report Date

VIKING MARS LANDER 1975 DYNAMIC TEST MOD_/ August i, 197401_1_ D_'v'_OI:I_ITAL TK._ MODlm'.FORCED 6. Performing Organization Code

VIBRATION TEST: SUMMARYREPORT

7. Author(s) 8. Performing Organization Report No.J. Fortenberry, G. R. Brownlee

9. Performing Organization Name and Address [0. Work Unit No.

JET PROPULSION LABORATORY

- California Institute of Technology 11. Contract or Grant No.4800 Oak Grove Drive NAS 7-1OO

Pasadena, California 91103 13. Type of Report c.d Period Covered

12. SponsoringAgency Name and Address Technical Memorandum

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION 14. SponsoringAgency CodeWashington, D.C. 20546

15. Supplementary Notes

16. Abstract

The Viking Mars Lander 1975 dynamic test model and Orbiter developmental testmodel were subjected to forced vibration sine tests in November-December 1973, !at JPL's dynamic test facility. Flight acceptance (FA) and type approval(TA) test levels were applied to the spacecraft structure in a longitudinaltest configuration using a 133,440-N (301000-ib) force shaker. Testing in

the two lateral axes (X, Y) was performed at lower levels using four 667-N

(150-Ib) force shakers.

Forced vibration qualif._ation (TA) test levels were successfully imposed onthe spacecraft at frequencies down to 10 Hz. JPL test equipment and methodshave been adequately checked out for rose on the proof test Orbiter.

Measured responses showed the same character as analytical predictions, and _ !correlation was reasonably good. Because of control system test tolerances, i

Orbiter primary structure generally did not reach the design load limits iattained in earlier static testing.

A post-test examination of critical Orbiter structure disclosed no apparent

damage to the structure as a result of the test environment.

17. Key Words (Selected by Author(s)) 18. Distribution Statement _t

Environmental Sciences I

Structural Engineering Unclassified -- Unlimited

Test Facilities and Equipment i

Vlkin_ Project |!

19. Security Classlf. (of this report) 20. Security Clasif. (of this po0e) 21. No. of Pages 22. Price I _:Unclassified Unclassified 83 !

t

1975003956-003

!

'IL 1g, •

HOW TO FILL OUT THE TECHNICAL REPORT STANDARD TITLE PAGE

Make items 1, 4, 5, 9, 12, and 13 agree with the corresponding information on the

report cover. Use all capital letters for title (item 4). _eave items 2, 6, and 14blank. Complete the remaining items as follows:

3. Recipient's Catalog No. Reserved for use by report recipients.

7. Author(s). Include corresponding information from the report cover. Inaddition, list the affiliation of an author if it differs from that of the

performing organization.

8. Performing Organization Report No. Insert if performing organizationwishes to assign this number.

10. Work Unit No. Use the agency-wide code (for example, 923-50-10-06-72),which uniquely identifies the work unit under which the work was authorized.

Non-NASA performing organizations will leave this blank.

11. Insert the number of the contract or grant under which the report wasprepared.

15. Supplementary Notes. Enter information not included elsewhere but useful,such as: Prepared in cooperation with... Translation of (or by)... Presented

at conference of... To be published in...

16. Abstract. Include a brief (not to exceed 200 words) factual summary of themost significant information contained in the report. If passible, theabstract of a classified report should be unclassified. If the report contains

a significant bibliography or literature survey, mention it here.

17. Key Words. Insert terms or short phrases selected by the author that identifythe principal subjects covered _n the report, and that are sufficiently

specific and precise to be used for cataloging.

18. Distribution Statement. Enter one of the authorized statements used to

denote releasability to the public or a limitation on dissemination forreasons other than security of defense information. Authorized statements

are "Unclassifled-Unllmlted, " "U. S. Government and Contractors only, "

"U. S. Government Agencies only, " and "NASA and NASA Contractors only. "

19. Security Classification (of report). NOTE: Reports carrying a security

classification will require additional markings giving security and down-grading information as specified by the Security Requirements Checklistand the DaD Industrial Security Manual (DaD5220.22-M).

20. Security Classification (of this page). NOTE. Because this page may be

used in preparing announcements, bibliographies, and data banks, it should

be unclassified if possible. If a classification is required, indicate sepa-rately the classification of the title and the abstract by following these items

with either "(U)" for unclassified, or "(C)" or "(S)" as applicable forclassified items.

21. No. of Pages. Insert the number of pages.

! 22. Price. Insert the price set by the Clearinghouse for Federal Scientific and

_ _ Technical Information or the Government Printing Office0 if known.

1975003956-004

PREFACE

The work described in this report was performed by the Applied

Mechanics Div_ion of the Jet Propulsion Laboratory.L

The Jet Propulsion Laboratory is responsible for the Viking Orbiter

System, which is part of the overall Viking Project managed by the Viking

Project Office at Langley Research Center for NASA.

i

JPL Technical Memorandum 33-689 ll! °

1975003956-005

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

The authors are indebted to J. Garba and F. Day for their tireless

support in providing the response analyses so vital to safe implementation of

the test. Thanks are also extended to R. Hansen and D. LoGiurato for their

diligence in providing trustworthy data acquisition and reduction for a very

complex structure. N. Morgan is to be commended for coordinating the pre-

test activities of the several different agencies involved in the test. In addi-

tion, the authors wish to thank M. Trummel and R. Glaser for their

suggestions and valuable assistance in conducting the test. Special mention

is made of G. Milder and the Dynamic Environmental Testing Group for their

fine execution of a pioneering test effort,

iv JPL Technical Memorandum 33-689

1975003956-006

CONTENTS

I. Introduction .................................. 1

II. Test Program .......................... ....... 1

A. Test Specimen ............................. I

B. Implementation ............................ 2

I. Longitudinal Test Setup .................. 2

Z. Lateral Test Setup ...................... 3

3. Test Levels ......................... 3

4. Vibration Control ...................... 4

5. Data Recording, Reduction ............... 5

6. Test Run Summary ...................... 5

III. Discussion of Test R.esults ....................... 6

A. Data Reduction ............................ 6

B. Test Level/Loads Control .................... 7

C. Response Measurements ...................... 9

IV. Conclusion .................................. 10

References ....................................... 11

APPENDIXES

A. Supporting Analyses ......................... 41

B. Rigid Lander Testing ........................ 47?

C. Measurement Assignment Sheets andPatch Assignments ......................... 57

TABLES

1. ODTM propulsion module mass configuration,294 K (70*F) .............................. 12

2. Forced vibration test levels, longitudinal (Z) axis ..... 12

JPL Technical Memorandum 33-689 v

1975003956-007

3. Forced vibration test levels, lateral (X,Y) axes ...... 13

4. Recording channel capability, tape recorderallocation ................................ 13

5. Summary of LDTM/ODTM forced vibrationtest runs ................................ 14

6. Typical ODTM loads derived from strain-gagemeasurements, TAinput, Z-axis, 10-40 Hz ........ 20

7. Typical ODTM response acceleration level _compared to analytical predictions, TA input,Z-axis, 10-40 Hz .......................... 21

8. LDTM/ODTM forccd vibration test comparisonof control channels for longitudinal axis testing ...... 22

A-1. Test fixture modes as a function of design iteration .... 45

A-2. Comparison of two phases of response analysis(longitudinal ) .............................. 45

B-I. Recording channel capability, taperecorder allocation ......................... 49

B-Z. Summary of CDTM/RL forced vibration test runs ..... 50

B-3. ODTM/RL forced vibration test comparison ofcontrol channels ........................... 5 l

B-4. Typical ODTM/RL loads derived from strain-gagemeasurements, comparison with analyticalpredictions, 1/3 TAinput, Z-axis, 8-40 Hz ......... 53

FIGURES

I. View from balcony of LDTM/ODTM longitudinal (Z)axis test setup ............................ 24

_. View from floor of LDTM/ODTM longitudinal (Z)axis test setup ............................ 35

3. Typical hydrostatic bearing installation ............ 26

4. Pneumatic spring support system ................ 27

5. Shaker body blocking system ................... 28

6. Overall view of LDTM/ODI'M lateral {Y) axistest setup ................................ 29

vi JPL Technical Memorandum 33-689

I

1975003956-008

7. Shaker 12, stinger, mechanical £uze, andODTM ous longeron attachment (Y-axis) ........... 30

8. Closeup view of mechanical fuze and ODTM buslongeron attachment (Y-axis) ................... 3 1

9. Overall view of LDTM/ODTM lateral (X) axistest setup ................................ 32

10. LDTM/ODTM forced vibration test busaccelerometer location ....................... 33

11. LDTM/ODTM longitudinal (Z) axis vibration testcontrol circuit, functional diagram ............... 35

12. Data acquisition system ...................... 37

13. Sequence of quick-look data reduction for testrun evaluation ............................. 38

14. Typical data reduction sequence ................. 38

15. Flow plan for establishing peak limit/select values .... 39

._-1. Analog load computation system ................. 46

B-1. Viking 1975 ODTM/RL longitudinal (Z) axistest setup ................................ 55

JPL Technical Memorandum 33-689 vii

1975003956-009

ABSTRACT

The Viking Mars Lander 1975 dynamic test model and Orbiter develop-

mental test model were subjected to forced vibration sine tests in November --

December 1973, at JPL's dynamic test facility. Flight acceptance (FA) and

type approval (TA) test levels were applied to the spacecraft structure in a

longitudinal test configuration using a 133,440-N (30,000-1b) force shaker.

Testing in the two lateralaxes (X, Y)was performed at lower levels using

four 667-N (150-1b) force shakers.

Forced vibration qualification (TA) test levels were successfully

imposed on the spacecraft at frequencies down to I0 Hz. JPL test equipment

and methods have been adequately checked out for use on the proof test

Orbiter.

Measured responses showed the same character as analytical predic-

tions, and correlation was reasonably good. Because of control system test

tolerances, Orbiter primary structure generaUy did not reach the design

load limits attained in earlier static testing.

A post-test examination of critical Orbiter structure disclosed no

apparent damage to the structure as a result of the test environment.

viii JPL Technical Memorandum 33-689

1975003956-010

I. INTRODUCTION

The objectives of the stack test series (Ref. l)were to

(I) Evaluate the effect of Lander/Orbiter interaction on response at

subsystem/component locations.

(2) Evaluate the adequacy of the Viking Mars Lander 1975 _,ynamic

test model (LDTM)/Orbiter developmental test model (ODTM)

secondary structure.

(3) Serve as a precursor to the proof test Orbiter (PTO) forced

vibration test, and evaluate PTO test levels.

(4) Ev _luate component sinusoidal test levels.

{5) Obtain data for comparison to analytical results.

The primary interest in the stack tests was centered in the mid- to

low-frequency regions (Z00 to 8 Hz), where component responses reach their

largest amplitudes. Forced vibration testing in the longitudinal axis was

initiated on November 5, 1973, and concluded November 29, 1973 Lateral

axis excitation started December 7, 1973, and finished December I0, 1973.

II. TEST PROGRAM

A. TEST SPECIMEN

The test article consisted of the following major hardware assemblies:

{1) LDTM.

{Z) ODTM.

(3) Viking transition adapter (VTA).

Major assemblies of the LDTM/ODTM were of night-configured hard-

ware wherever possible. Mass mockups or simulators had Jaertial propertie,

similar to the components being replaced. Thermal control hardware .*uch

as louvers and blankets was not used on the ODTM.

JPL Technical Memorandum 33-689 I

k

1975003956-011

l

k

Pressurized systems on the LDTM consisted of th_ bioshield and pro-

pellanttanks. The bioshieldwas pressurized to 249 ±224N/m 2 (I.0 _0.9 in.

of water)::=during testing. The lander propellant tanks were filledwitI.

refer__efluidsand pressurized to i37,900 N/m 2 (20 psig) with gaseous n'_tro-

gen. This pressurization was maintained throughout the entiretest series.

The only active pressurized subsystems on the ODTM was the propul-

sion module {PM), which was configured as shown in Table I.

B. IMPLEMENTATION

I. Longitudinal Test Setup

The test specimen setup for longitudinalaxis testingproceeded accord-

ing to the following sequence (Ref. Z):

(1) VTA mounted on longitudinaltest fixture.

(2) Viking spacecraft adapter (V-S/C-A) mounted on VTA.

(3) ODTMbus mated to loaded, unpressuriz_d PM.

(4) Bus/PM combination mounted on V-S/C-A.

(5) Viking Lander capsule adapter {VLCA) preassembled on handling

equipment.

{6) LDTM mated to VLCA.

(7) LDTM/VLCA combination mated to ODTM bus.

The final longitudinal test configuration is shown in Figs. 1 and 2.

Excitation was provided by a Ling 249 133,440-N {30,000-1b) force shaker.

The interface between the shaker and the VTA was provided by the test

fixture. The teat fixture, a welded magnesium struct" "e, was stabilized by

a restraining system consisting of three steel piers on which hydrostatic

bearings were mourted {Fig. 3). The bearings allowed vertical movement

only, while the piers provided the reaction points for the spacecraft over-

turning moment predicted by response a:laLysis {Appendix A).

i

_Customary U.S. units were used for primary measurements and calculations.

2 JPL Technical Memorandum 33-b89

o 4

,

1975003956-012

The combined veights of the LDTM/ODTM and the test fixture

(4,536 kg = 10,000 lb) would have caused excessive deflection of the shaker

armature, preventing normal operation. Pneumatic springs with a resonant

frequency of approximately 2 ttz (Barry Serva-Levels, Fi_.. 4) were mounted

on the shaker body at 120-deg intervals. A position control servo regulated

the springs, air volume and positioned the shaker armature at the center of

its stroke under static conditions.

Experimentation with the shaker irdicated a trunnion resonance of

approximately 12 Hz when the shaker was suspended on its isolation pads.

Blocking the shaker or lifting the trunnions off the isolation pads increased

this frequency to 35 Hz. More experimentation demonstrated the potential

danger of sweeping through the trunrion resonance. This position was

blocked for all tests below 25 ttz by in_erting shims between the shake.-" body

and steel posts hard-mounted to the seismic mass _Fig. 5). For testing

above 25 Hz, the shims w_,r_ removed.

2. Lateral Test Setup

Following longitudinal testing, the LDTM/VLCA combination wa,J

demated from the ODTM bus and se_ aside. 'rhe remainder of the test speci-

men, which inclucted the ODTM bus/PM, V-S/C.A, and 'TTA was then lifted

as a unit and placed in the modal test tower, and the LDTM/VLCA was mated

to the test assembly. The test setups for lateral excitation in the X- and

Y axes are illustrated in Figs. 6 - 9.

Excitation of the LDTM/ODTM in each axis was accomplished wi_h

four Unholtz-Dickie electrodynamic shakers, each rated at 667-N t l50-1b)

force. The shakers were pendulously supported from crane hoolcs and

chai, and attached to the ODTM bus main longerons through adjustzble

"stingers" and mechanical fuzes (flexures), as illustrated in Fig. 7.

3. Test Levels

Precuroor or low-level test runs were made prior to f,,_:_Icvel (flight

acceptance (FA), type approval (TA)} testing, From these pr ,,.t_rsor run_,

the responses of critical structural elements or components, _,-,.e evaluated

by at0alysls of 0-graph plots, X-Y ira ing filter plots, and an analog

JPL Technical Memorandum 33-689 3

1975003956-013

computer program that generated ODTM member loads. Comparison of

these data with response analysis predictions provided confidence in the test

structure to withstand full-level loading.

The vibration inputs as originally defined in Ref. 3 were modified and

applied to the LDTM/ODTM, as noted in Tables 2 and 3.

4. Vibration Control

Control of the longitudinal vibration input to the LDTM/ODTM was

accomplished with a 36-channel peak select system. The peak select control

system continuously monitored the output signals of lZ input control acceler-

ometers located on the ODTM bus structure main Iongerons (Fig. 10) plus a

24-channel mix of strain-gage/accelerometer response transducers. Bolted

attachmentwas mandatory for the input control accelerometers (Refs. Z and 4).

The acceleration input to the test structure was controlled on the one

transducer whose output signal matched its peak select setting. A functional

diagram of the control system is shown in Fig. 1 1.

A 59-channel peak limit system was used. This safety circuit

terminated the output of the vibration exciter without transient if the instan-

taneous peak magnitude of any of the 59-peak limit settings exceeded a preset

value. Because of test philosophy/hardware differences, the peak limited

signals assigned to the LDTM were passed through a Z00-Hz filterprior to

reaching the protection module. Those channels used for ODTM peak

limiting were conditioned with 800-Hz filters.

The control of the lateral axis testing, in which four separate shakers

were used, was accomplished in a manner similar to the longitudinal test.

The four Unholtz-Dickie Model 4 667-N (150-lb) shakers and associated

power supply were married to the peak select control system. Because the

individual shakers were carefully matched with their transformers, it was

decided to control the force input on all four shakers by connecting them

together in series and using the armature current output signal from just

one of the four shakers. This technique proved very successful.

4 JPL Technical Memorandum 33-689

1975003956-014

5. Data Recording, Reduction

Control and response amplitude of the LDTM/ODTM were measured

with strain gages and accelerometers. The allocation of dynamic recording

channels is shown in Table 4. The overall instrumentation flow is presented

in Fig. lZ.

The Z74 output signals noted in Table 4 were recorded on electromag-

netic tape for all test runs. In addition, approximately 48 channels of control

and housekeeping data were recorded in real=time display on oscillographs

for each test run. Following each test run, qu;...-look data reduction was

ac:omplished according to the sequence shown in Fig. 13. More formal data

reduction consisted primarily of X=Y plots of all component responses for

the FA and TA test runs.

A large number of static measurements were made on the ODTM during

buildup and always following each test run. These strain measurements

(approximately 140 to 175} were in printed paper tape format. Monitoring of

dc offsets in this manner contributed greatly to test confidence where the

integrity of ODTM structure was concerned.

Detailed measurement assignment sheets and patch assignments are

contained in Appendix C.

6. Test Run Summary

Test sequencing and run parameters are shown in Table 5. A total of

44 separate test runs were made on the LDTM/ODTM during the period of

November 5 through December 10, 1973--a span of 24 days. Actual test

runs were short-- a matter of several minutes. Test preparation, control

console setup, and trouble-shooting made the largest demands on the time

budget.

J PL Technical Memorandum 33-689 5

1975003956-015

III. DISCUSSION OF TEST RESULTS

A. DATA REDUCTION

The response characteristics of the test structure were derived from

analysis of recorded test data. As originally planned, the bulk of ODTM

test data on electromagnetic tape was to be reduced from analog to digitized

format, manipulated by program, and output in a tab run form. These tab

runs were to furnish the following information for each test run:

(1) Identification of control or response limiting channel at each

0.1 Hz of selected bandwidths of interest.

(Z) Display of maximum amplitudes of response channels and fre-

quencies of maximum response.

(3) Manipulated data from maximum response channels {loads,

moments, cumulative damage ratios).

From examination of these tab runs, selected X-Y plots of amplitude versus

frequency were to be selected for comparison with response analysis plots.

Manual reduction of on-line (real-time) oscillographs was to be accomplished

on a quick-look basis to assess the adequacy of a test run.

During the initial test runs, it became apparent that the fo mat speci- 1fled in steps (1), (Z), and (3) could not be achieved because of equipment 1

tlimitations. Existing capability did not include the possibility of identifying

the controlling channel or maximum response in a digitized, tab run format. 1

Since confidence was lacking in these basic data, attempts to perform i

step (3) were abandoned in favor of an analog computer. _ :i'

Another major change that became apparent as testing progressed was i

that the original plan for processing and evaluating LDTM data was _nade- 1

quate. The initial scheme was to rely on real-time oscillograph records ]

for test evaluation and accomplish final data reduction following completion 1 '

of all testing. Since this level of effort could not support the LDTM, the 1entire concept of data reduction was redirected and typically accomplished ! °

in the manner shown in Fig. 14. i

Following a typical test run, the test team would gather in the data

i acquisition facility to review the 48 channels of on-line oscillograph records.t

i

6 .[PL Technical Memorandum 33-689 _

l

1975003956-016

Anomalous or suspicious channels would then be patched in to an oscilloscope

for further exan_ination. This phase of the data reduction process generally

required 1 or Z h.

Once the test appeared acceptable, the tapes from recorders 1, 2, and

3 and the 140MX were secured and forwarded to tae data analysis facility.

First priority was to obtain X-Y plots of amplitude versus frequency for all

control channels. TR2 was then returned to the data acquisition facility to

ioin the 78MX for oscillograph playback of all I,DTM channels. Because of

equipment problems, the control channel X-Y plots required 1 to 3 days for

processing, l_layback of all I,DTM channels was normally accomplished in

one or two shifts.

The ODTM strain gage channels':' were run through an analog computer

for derivation of member loads. These loads were averaged over several

cycles to lessen transient effects and digitized to yield peak values at particu-

lar frequencies. To determine naaxinauna stress, the axial loads and naot_ents

were added, assuming the worst combination of loading and phasing. Assess-

ment of peak select levels and cumulative damage estimates were based on

this process.

While the foregoing was being accomplished, the on-line oscillograph

records were manually reduced. Control channels, peak amplitudes, and

overshoot were determined and sunamarized for presentation to the test oper-

ations board.

Following completion of the testing, X-Y plots were made for all

I,DTM/ODTM channels for FA and TA levels. This effort took over

2 months to complete and was complicated by calibration naisunderstandings

or errors and equipment breakdown.

B. TEST LEVEI,/I,OADS CONTROl,

Because of control system and load limitations combined with the

response characteristics of the LDTM/ODTM (narrow bands with high ampli-

tudes), the servo control was unable to maintain a constant input acceleration

"Only a limited number of ODTM strain channels were recorded on TR3,4,and the 140MX during the later phases of testing. During the initial low- ilevel runs, a large portion of LDTM strain recording capability (78MX)was made available to the ODTM. :

,IPL Tochnical Memorandum 33-t_89 7

1975003956-017

at any one of the twelve control accelerometers. This was not unexpected

since similar behavior had been observed in earlier spacecraft testing. In

addition, studies conducted at the dynamic test facility using instrumented

cantilevered beams and the proposed control hardware disclosed that control

might be difficult at frequencies below 17 Hz. That is, during the switching

from one control channel to another, overshoot errors could occur resulting

in a possible overtest. Overshoot is defined as maximum observed test

amplitudes greater than the peak desired select control level.

Two basic sources contribute to overshoot: RC time constant ofac to

dc conversion, and deadband. The time constant is simply the time required

to convert the ac signal from the transducer into adc voltage. This is done

in two places: in the ACS-6 (peak selector) and in the servo. The time con-

stant is a function of frequency and is longer at low frequency than high.

Deadband may be defined as the amount that one signal must exceed another

in order to cause a switch of the ACS-6 output from the latter to the former.

Of the above two overshoot sources, the RC time constant was the more

significant.

Although a definitive model of the control system capability is not

available, the overshoot appeared to be dependent on the following

parameters:

( 1 ) Resonant frequency.

(2) Slope or O of the resonance.

(3) Sweep rate.

(4) Direction _,f sweep (up or down).

Significant overshoots were observed during the test runs. Low-level

(precursor) test runs were made and the peak select control levels carefully

monitored to evaluate this phenomenon. Examination of on-line oscillograph

records uf response control strain gages disclosed initial amplitudes of

I. 00 to I. 52 times the peak select level established for these transducers.

The stress values from these low-level test runs were used to derive

internal loads in the ODTM structural members. The peak limit and peak

select load ,,alu¢s were established based on these low-level runs and applied

B JPL Technical Memorandum 33-689

1975003956-018

i

to full FA and TA test levels. The formulation shown in Fig. 15 was used

to derive these control levels.

C. RESPONSE MEASUREMENTS

All forced vibration test runs on the LDTM/ODTM were controlled by

ODTM bus input accelerometers or by various strain-gage/accelerometer

response measurements. The characteristics of this 36-channel peak select

control system were not included in the response analysis. In addition, the

type approval control values selected for load limiting were approximately

two-thirds of the limit values used in the analysis. Th,_refore, extremely

close correlation between test and analysis cannot be expected. Neverthe- !

less, some typical accelerometer and strain-gage response measurements

have been compared with analytical predictions and are presented in Tables 6

and 7. In general, the correlation appears reasonably good (Kef. 5).

The response analysis of the coupled LDTM/ODTM math models was

very helpful in estimating potential response control channels. Examination

of Table 8 gives an approximate indication of the actual versus predicted

control channels. At first glance, it would appear that the correlation is

not good. However, the agreement between analysis and test is better than

casual observation indicates for the following reasons:

(I) These frequencies marked (I) represent conditions where the

terminal descent (TD) tank peak select levels were set substan-

tially lower than the values used in the analysis. Consequently,

the TD tanks were biased to attain greater control during actual

testing. The sensitivity of the control system to lower TD tank

control levels is demonstrated by comparison of the FA and TA

runs in the table. DE-D79 used in the FA tests was replaced by

DE°08Z, with a peak select setting approximately 80°/0 of its

initial TA level. This channel assumed control so effectively

that no other Lander controls appeared in the TA switching

sequence.

(7) The (2) notation in FA testing represents Lander payload adapter

strains that were never included in the response analysis.


¢ i _,'

1975003956-019

(3) Precision in determining exactly when a control accelerometer

will take over (other than for rigid-body modes) is beyond the

capability of present analysis. This is particularly true when

the actual control system constraints are considered (i.e., over-

shoots, time constants, etc.).

: (4) The upper plane truss 134-S was shown by analysis to be at 80%

of its limit.

Some typical measured load values have been compared with their

! analytical counter parts (Table 6). Based on that sample, 50% of the meas-

ured frequencies were higher than predicted and 50% ]nwer. Approximately

two thirds of the measured loads were somewhat lower than predicted values.

This was not unexpected because of the tolerances used in establishing peak

limit/select values; i.e., the analysis limits did not include test tolerances.

Examination of typical response accelerations (Table 7) reveals that

measured frequencies were usually higher than those predicted by analysis.

Amplitudes were generally lower than predicted by approximately that

amount established by test tolerances.

IV. CONCLUSION

The following remarks may be made based on the stack testing

experience and review of the test data:

(1) Test implementation went better than anticipated. This was

due, in large part, to the careful preparation leading up to the

test and the long hours of overtime donated by the test team.

(2) Forced vibration qualification levels were successfully imposed

on the LDTM/ODTM Orbiter primary structure. Load levels

generally did not reach design load limits attained in static test-

ing because of the control system test tolerances,

(3) Test predictions based on the Viking mathematical model corre-

lated reasonably well with the test data. In general, test fre-

quencles were _lightly higher than analytical predictions and

I0 JPL Technical Memorandum 33-689

i

q97500395G-020

amplitudes lower. This further demonstrates that the coupled

Viking spacecraft mathematical model has no major errors.

(4) JPL test equipment and methods have been checked out for use

on the proof test Orbiter. The test was controllable down to

10 Hz at TA levels.

REFERENCES

1. Snyder, R.E., Summary of LDTM/ODTM Stack Test Results forViking Management Council. Langley Research Center, ttampton, Vs.,Feb. 1¢}74.

2. Morgan, N., and Fortenberry, J., Vikin8 75 ODTM/RL and LDTM/ODTM Forced Vibration Test Plan and Procedures, Project Docu-ment611-51. Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, Calif., Dec. 1973(Internal document. )

3. Rader, W.P., Test Specification for LDTM/ODTM Sinusoidal VibrationTest, Document No. 837J20001-tl. Martin Marietta Corporation,Denver, Colo. Oct. 1 }_3.

4. Milder, G.J., Structures and D)'namics Section Viking 1t_75 ODTM/LDTM Forced Vibration Test Procedure Longitudinal Axis (Z), 'restProcedure 507000. Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, Calif.,Oct. 1973. {Internal document.)

5. Vigil, R.A., LDTM/ODTM Forced Vibration Test Anal)'tical and TestData Comparison, Document No. 0433/74-044. Martin MariettaCorporation, Denver, Colo., Feb. 1'_74.

6. Milder, G.J., and Valtier, H., Viking 1t_75 ODTM/RL and Viking 1q75ODTM/LDTM Forced Vibration Test, October 26 -December 10, 1t}73.Test Report VO75-35-100. .Tet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena,Calif., Jan. 1t}74. (Internal document.)

7. Valtivr, H., Accelerometer t_:able Test, Interoffice Memorandum

354/HV/Z-74. Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, Calif.,Jan. 1974. {Internal document.)

JPL Technical Memorandum 33-68q 11

1975003956-021

; 1

Table 1. ODTM propulsion module mass configuration,294 K (70 ° F)

Referee Fluid, weight, Ullage, Pressure,T ankfluid kg {lb) % N/m 2 (psia) a

Oxidizer Freon TF 935.6 16. 8 723,950(2,063) (105)

Fuel Isopropyl 504. 3 10. 1 723,950alcohol (1, 112) (105)

Pr es surant - -- - Atmo sphe r ic

aODTM propellant tank pressures were closely monitored during thestack test series (Appendix C).

Table 2. Forced vibration test levels, longitudinal (Z) axis

Amplitude, g peak

Level 200- 20- 128- 20 - 200- 128-25-7 Hz 22-8 Hz 22-10 Hz 200 Hz 128 Hz 200 Hz

Precursor 0. 5 -- -- 0.5 -- --

Flight -- 1.0 -- -- 1.0 0. 00003 m(0.0012 in.)acceptancedouble

amplitude

Type -- -- 1.5 -- 1. 5 0. 00046 mapproval ( 0.0018 in. )

doubleamplitude


1975003956-022

Table 3. Forced vibration test levels, lateral (X,Y) axes

Amplitude -- g peakLevel Test axis

200-5-200 Hz 200-8-200 Hz

Precursor Y 1.5 {311/70) a -

YFull X -- I.5 (556/125)

aNumbers in parentheses indicate force level (N/lb) of each of thefour Unholtz- Dickie Shaker s.

Table 4. Recording channel capability, tape recorder allocation

Peak select House-

Data Peak Compo- Timing, keepingUser Input Response limit nent reference Miscel- Total

control control response laneous

LDTM/ I2 lI 65 4 92MMA (TR2) (78MX) (TR2, 78MX)

ODTM/ 12 12 12 129 6 17]JPL (TRI) a (TR3) (140) (TRI, 3, 140)

Test 2 9 1!facility/ (TR 4) (TR4)JPL

Total 12 24 23 194 12 9 274

al_arentheses indicate tape recorder assignment.

JPL Technical Memorandum 33-689 13f

....... t ...........

1975003956-023

_ _0_. _ _ _ .o

...oo__ N

0_

u_ 1_ u_ u_ urt u_ m u_ 0 0

0

['4e_

I

o o . }

_ U '

N _ _

_I_ _ I_, I I _ii ! '_ I I I _ _

N N N N N N N N _ t_ _ "

" i_._o_ =o

M" N N N N N N N N N N e _".ml_.

C_

I I I

t 14 3PL Technical Memorandum 33-689 |

1975003956-024

!

_N N

',,,D _ _0 0 _' 0" 0_. 0" 0

..,=¢ =,=.= _ ,,i¢ _ .=,.¢ =,if

N _ '_ ul_ _0 h. O0l I I I I I I

; 3PL Technical Memorand'am 33-6Rq 15

1975003956-025

!

I_r-,

0 _1 .........

u_

0

GO N N ,"* I m

• _ N _ N N N N N N N

0 0 r.- I _. r.- _o co _o

eP-- N N N N _ N _ N N

i_ ___ I I I I

U'1 U_ _0 *0 qO ,_D qO I'_ I'.-

i 16 JPL Technical Memorandum 33-689

| __, i

] 975003956-026

J t

Iel

_w

0 _ _ NO_ O_ 0 _ @.

• E_ N N N N N _-m m sis _It _it _

N I_ _1' th "*


t ,

1975003956-027

0

O_i_-- ,,0 ur_ ,-_ ,-_ ,-_

N N N N ¢'_ N

0 0 0 0 0

I_ ,"'_ N N N N N N

I I I I

!, _; o o o o o oN N N N N N

18 31_L Technical Memorandum 33-689

1975003956-028

, !

N N0

N N N O0

I

0 0 0 0

I_ N N N N_ V

_Z o o oN t'_ e_ e_

2

JILL, Technical Memorandum 33-689 19 i '

1975003956-029

Z0 J_L Technical Memorandum 33-689

1975003956-030

f

++.

' Eo _

: °11 _o _ _

.,¢

_I gg °'+o _ -:-' _ _ .........,.,,+ _ I,< .E

-g_ - = i2

¢I + _ _'" -" " ++ +

m+ " +u :

UIll =

II

•_._ < o _.=.,_ _< ..+• _1 >_ _'_ "_'. _ ,,

l", ._-_ O,_Ox_N r+--- ,-,.._ I-, x ," I_ x :" t-_,-,< X ;,,-,,-,s, X ,.-,x X ;.'-'N

; -_

i

+

3PL Technical Memorandum 33-689 21

,!J

1975003956-031

I 1

ZZ 3PI_ Technics} Memorandum 33-689

1975003956-032


k

1975003956-033

Fig. 1. View from balcony of LDTM/OI)TM longitudinal(Z) axis test setup

24 JPL Tectmlcal Memorandum 33-689

t

1975003956-034

1

1975003956-035

b'lg. _. 'l'yvic,_l hydrostatic be,lrin_ installation

26 ,l I_I, T_'chnic,ll M_,m_)r,lndum 33-),8')

X.

1975003956-036

Fi R . 4. Pneumatic spring support system

JPL Technical blemorandum 33-t)89 27

1975003956-037

Fig. 5. Shaker body blockingsystem

Z8 JPL TechnicalMemorandum 33-689

8

\

1975003956-038

FiR. (>. Overall view of I,IYl'k.IIOI)TM lateral (Y) axis test setup

,1t_I, T_..chnical kl,_,nl_,ranclulli 33 - l>S't ,_,l

1975003956-039

d

1975003956-040

1975003956-041

32 ,IPI, T_,chnical iMemorandun', 33-_,89

1975003956-042

CONSTANT DtFFSINEREF CONTROL AM_"_Pn_u'renl :

[ ...... = ----n

[ . .',x_xi,i-.PU-;I_'_I,_sI _"'

i CONVERTER

!_ S/CSTRAINPEAKLIMITi I

H 6&K2416 < Zk-.-. ELECT.

VOLTMETER

L_........ ._ ..... __--J_

PEAKSELECT

F - _I ' _1 _[ i

i

't ilI _ U,D.ACC....CONTROL U.D. ACS-6MASTER CONTROL,

J SELECTO|

I '

J I PEAKf

J i CI INDIC_

L -Fig. II. LDTM/OD_.

F-Q_X_J.I _ FOLDOUT,3PL Technic&l Memorandum 33-689 '_

197500:3956-044

DIFF

__ CONTROL TO INSTRUMENTATION

DIFF

CURRENT _ TO INSTRUMENTATIONTO INSTRUMENTATION POWERAMPLIFIER

I ...._',_" I I " " -- ; =; POWERAMPLI- SWITCHING MATCHING

_-[ .... II II ,.,, cu.icL, T,ANs,o_,l1--.J _ ........F PEAKLIMITERS

[-_ ..... .... 1 LING_,,VIBRATION

JPL VIB PROTECT. J IMODULE _K LIMIT) J I J I I I i OVERTRAVEL_9 CHANNELS HOUSEKEEPING _"" I _1 ,,,_.M.ERI'-I i. i "O,._ONTALOV_'TRAV'L

t t o,- / I--I '_ _ o,LPRESS,.,,.TEAM,,,.,,NGS

: TO OIL PRESSURE/AIRPRESSUREINTERLOCKS VO'75 SPACECRAFT

// /EXCITER STRAIN GAGE SYSTEM,ROOM 100 LDTM,/ODTMHEAD .........

ll SPEAK O J- 1 CHANNELS36CONTROL

/ I_CSTRA,NPEAK.M,TL,M,T_ I S_"NGAG'II S_,NGAG'l i C.ANNELs"PEAKL'M'T_/ , J | AMPLIFIERS _ EXCITERSAND lel i --O--/ / GAIN = 200 I I BRIDGE I •,,_/ I I"1 I I I I

1 1 1_/ - 1. ...J. PEAKSELECT GALVO OUT

1 ACCELEROMETER e.---/ CHARGE AMPLIFIER,

:_ t I_I sER,,oout I'ODEJ

_, CONTROLSELECTOR IJ 120-Hz _ '

p,. (6 SLAVES) I I.,..J LOW-PASSFILTER TAPEOUT TO

,,,, J J 36CHANNELS 37CH INSTRUMENTATION

i FILTERING

CHANNEL J

INDICATOR D TO INSTRUMENTAo,_ "_ (7 UNITS) TION (ANALOG)

, I-ig. 1 I. LDTM/ODTM longitudinal (Z) axis vibration test control circuit, functional block diagram ;_

rOLl)OUTFI_AME3S

197500:3956-045

! !

REVIEWBYPLAYBACKOF | TESTTEAM

SELECTED I (LDTM/O DTM)

CHANNELS ONOSCILLOSCOR

L .. REVIEWBYTESTTEAM

I SUMMARIZEDBY

ON-LINE TESTCONDUCTORO-GRAPHS(TRI,2,3o4) EVALUATION OF TEST

DECISION TO PROCEEDTO NEXT TEST

REVIEWBY IDI O-GRAPH PLAY- J TESTTEAM

BACKOF LDTM _ (LDTM)CONTROL RESt_ONSEJCHANNELS (TR2, I

711_X) J

REVIEW|Y

J t TESTTEAM

X-Y PLOTSOF (LDTM/ODTM)ALLCONTROLCHANNELS (TR1,2,3)

Fig. 13. Sequence of quick-look datareduction for testrun evaluation

REAL-TIMEEVALUATION FI REVIEW,WRITTENSUM-J

OF ON-LINE O-GRAPHS MARY OF ON-LINE JO-GRAPHS BYTEST [

(48 CHANNELS, TAPE CONDUCTOR JRECORDERSIw2,3,4)

tPLAYRACKOF CHANNELSOF INTERESTON OSCIL-LOSCOPELTAffi[RECORDERS

1,2,3,4 71tMX) t OSCILLOGRAPHPLAY- ]

IINITIATE I t RACK OF TR2, 7IMXAT DATARECORDINGACTION FOR JNEXT TEST J | DECISION FACILITY

TRI,2,3,14QMX TOYES DATA REDUCTION

FACILITY FOR X-YNO PLOTS

tREMEDIALACTION; E. G. , 1 ANALOG/DIGITAL "J

CHANGE RESPONSECON- _ COMPUTATION OF

TROLCHANNELS AND/OR ODTM LOADS,PEAKSELECT/LIMiT MOMENTS, CUMU-VALUES LATIVE DAMAGE

Fig. 14. Typical data reduction sequence

38 3PL Technical Memorandum 33-689

1975003956-047

am

I_°w_°_°'°" I l I(DERIVED FROM ] × (STD TEST TA PEAK LIMITTOLERANCE) J

LOA0 ANALYSIS) I VALUE

If

I 1°_ I I ITA PEAK x (30_6 OVER- _ TA PEAK

LIMIT VALUE SHOOT FACTOR) J SELECT VALUE

f I

I I°" I i ITA PEAK FA PEAKSELECT VALUE x (STO TEST

TOLERANCE) LIMIT VALUE

It

I loo I I IFA PEAK (30% OVER- = FA PEAKLIMIT VALUE x SHOOT FACTOR) SELECT VALUE

F[ 8. 15. Flow plan for establishingpeak limit/select values


" '' k

1975003956-048

ti

APPENDIX A

SUPPORTING ANALYSES

The complexity, scope, and tight schedule of the stack test left no

time for surprises or emergencies. As a result, significant effort was

devoted to pretest analysis. The analyses were divided into four categories:

test fixture, overturning moment, response or test simulation, and fatigue

damage.

I. TEST FIXTURE ANALYSIS

The predesign of the magnesium Z-axis test fixture was evaluated as

a first step in the analysis of the stack test setup. The objective of this

analysis was to determine characteristics of the basic fixture and to ascer-

tain the level of fixture representation required for the response analysis.

The analytical configuration consisted of a simplified 12-degree-of-

freedom (DOF) model of the spacecraft (6 DOF each for Lander and Orbiter),

combined with a dynamic model of the test fixture. The VLCA and V-S/C-A

were elastically modeled. The fixture was considered fixed at the base of

its core.

Two types of analyses were performed: static and modal. Static loads

applied to the combined system yielded only a qualitative estimate of the

fixture strength since boundary conditions were not represented in this

analysis. Modal analysis was performed on the combined fixture/spacecraft

model and also on the spacecraft model cantilevered from the base of the

V-S/C-A. The comparison of combined system modes with cantilevered

spacecraft modes gave an indication of fixture rigidity.

The first fixture mode (torsional) occurred at 36 Hz, with five addi-

tional modes between 100 and 200 Hz. Since a design goal was to keep fix-

ture resonances close to 200 Hz, considerable changes were made to the

proposed test setup. These modifications included a pair of V-type hydro-

static bearings at one location around the fixture. A further refinement of the

i analysis disclosed that the addition of torsional restraint flexures did not con-

tribute enough stiffness to be cost-effective. The results are summarized in

_ Table A- 1.• PR_CKDh_ PAGE BLANKNOTFILMED


1975003956-049

II. OVERTURNING MOMENT

Early in the program, it became apparent that the longitudinal test

buildup, its stack height coupled with the spacecraft CG offset, would be

subject to large overturning moments. Estimates of these moments ranged

from 56,000 to 113,000 Nm (500,000 to I, 000,000 Ib-in.) applied to the

VTA/test fixture interface.

For this analysis, the Orbiter elastic model was coupled to a rigid

lander. This combination, in turn, was mated to a rigid longitudinal fixture

model restrained at three locations by hydrostatic bearings of known stiff-

ness. The results of the analysis offered the first positive indication that

the stack test could be implemented. Angular deflection limits of the shaker

armature, a source of concern, were shown to be no problem.

In addition, reaction forces on the hydrostatic bearings and the forces

applied to the fixture were computed and used to perform a stress/fatigue

analysis of the fixture and check the bearing adequacy. These same moment

reaction forces were applied to the piers supporting the bearings to check

their stability.

III. TEST SIMULATION, RESPONSE ANALYSIS

Response analysis of the test setup was required for the following

reasons:

(I) To obtain an estimate of the test environment, i.e., identify

member loads and locate accelerometers at critical response

points.

(2) To evaluate shaker force requirements and control levels.

(3) To provide reaction forces for fixture design.

(4) To provide an estimate of the spacecraft fatigue capability.

The analysis followed an evolutionary pattern and was accomplished

: in phases since both LDTM and ODTM elastic models were being r,,vised

and upgraded. A comparison of the character'stics of each phase is shown

in Table A-2 for longitudinal excitation.


1975003956-050

!

1!

Simulation of lateral axis excitation was noteworthy because of a

change in test philosophy. Preliminary analysis had indicated excessive

coupling of the lateral _nd torsional modes of the spacecraft. This was due

to the combination of spacecraft CG offset and the application of unrestrained

driving forces at the bus main longerons. As a result, an intermediate

analysis using restrained or guided input forces was performed; it appeared

to solve the coupling problem at all but the lowest frequencies (5-10 Hz).

In this bandwidth, analysis indicated that the driving forces required were

so small that control might be difficult to achieve.

Finally, at the Test Readiness Review meeting, members of the Engi-

neering Steering Group objected to the restraint of spacecraft torsional

motion due to the massive lateral test fixture connected to a Ling 249 shaker.

The fixture was to be constrained by hydrostatic bearings to move only in

one direction. As a result, the test team was directed to seek a lateral

driving scheme with minimum restraint. The final choice (and analysis) con-

siste.d (,f using the four (_67-N (I 50-1b) shakers discussed in Section II-B-2.

IV. ESTIMATE OF FATIGUE DAMAGE

The objective of the fatigue analysis was to monitor and enable predic-

tion of possible fatigue damage so that vibration test levels could be con-

trolled to prevent cracks from forming in the ODTM primary structure.

The cumulative damage ratio (CDR) used to determine fatigue damage

can be stated as

J n.

0.z0i=l

wheren i= number of cycles experienced at a particular stress level ei and

N i = allowable number of cycles at that same stress level. The number of

cycles n in any frequency bandwidth is given by the expression

n = 60_fkin 2

where Af = bandwidth (Hz) and k = sweep rate (oct/rain).


1975003956-051

The CDR of 0.20 (failureis assumed at I,00) was feltto be conserva-

tiveyet generally consistent with prevailingpractice in industry at present.

Since the ODTM was scheduled for ultimate statictestingfollowing the

vibrationtest, every efforthaa to be made to assure a healthy test struc-

ture. The analysis, performed in two phases, consisted of the following

baaic steps: i

(I) i,4entification of critical primary structure.

(2) Sur_'ey of parts for material, notch-sensitive areas.

(3) Compilation of S/N curves, derivation of curve fitting equations.

(4) Obtaining loading spectrum (predicted or test).

(5) Computation of CDRs.

Phase I of the analysis, FA I, was designed to take computer-generated

(response analysis)loads combined with geometric and material properties

and compute the CDR. FAII did the same but was designed to accept data in

digitizedformat. In addition,FAII would print out the contributionof each

frequency intervalto the totalCDR for the member.

FA I performed itsfunctionas intended. FAII fellprey to the limita-

tion noted in Subsection Ill-A,Data Red,.ction.Namely, manipulated load

data was to be provided in digitizedformat. The effortof converting the

analog signalson the tapes to digitalform was finallyabandoned in favor of

the analog setup shown in Fig. A-I.

The net result of the fatigueanalysis was that the ODTM possessed

substantialmargin to withstand a moderate number of FA and TA level

vibration sweeps Without exceeding the CDR of 0. Z0. This provided consider-

able confidence in the conduct of the test since earlier approximate hand

analyses had indicatedpotentialproblems in the VLCA and bus main longe-

tons. This confidence was borne out when a rigorous post-testdye-penetrant

examination disclosed no apparent fatiguecracks.


k .

1975003956-052

Table Ao 1. Test fixture modes as a £unction of design iteration

Frequency, HzFixture mode

Initial design V-bearing plus Torsional restraintlower ring flexure s

First torsion 36 109 130

Lateral 102 122 122translation

Second torsion 147 177 183

Long itudinal 199 209 209translation

Table A-2. Comparison of two phases of responseanalysis (longitudinal)

Analysis Phase I Phase IIcomponent

Lander Rigid Elastic model

Fixture, shaker Not included, spacecraft Shaker modeled, fixturecantilevered at base assumed rigid (5-40 Hz),of V-S/C-A hydrostatic bearings

included

Propellant ks Flight mass simulation Test mass simulation(referee fluids)

Orbiter Elastic model 7, no Elastic mode I 8, no VTA,VTA0 solar panel solar panel dampersdampers


: i

1975003956-053

Fig. A-l. Analog load computaticn system


1975003956-054

Ai_ PENDIX B

RIGID LANDER TESTING

I. SUMMARY

Initial forced vik_ation testing of the Viking 75 ODTM was conducted

in the l_ngitudinal axis using a rigid lander (RL). This test, a precu_'sor to

the LDTM/ODTM (Stack) Test, was accomplished October 26 through

October 30, 1973. One third of type approval (TA) test levels were applied

to the ODTM/RL using the same dynamic test facility and equipment to be

later used on the LDTM/ODTM.

II. INTRODUCTION

The uverall objective of the ODTM/RL test was to aetermine the

readiness of JPLts dynamic test facility to conduct forced vibration testing

on the LDTM/ODTM Stack. To support this objective, the following tasks

were accomplished.

(1) Evaluation of the 36-channel peak select control channels.

(2) Determination c_¢ critical strain-gage control channels.

(3) Additional verification of the Viking Orbiter math model.

(4) Gathering of test data to s_pport future PTO testing with the RL.

(5) Demonstration that hardware and handling procedures were

adequate.

III. TEST PROGRAM

Except thatthe rigid lander was used instead of the LDTM, _he test

specin:en and longitudinaltest setup were the same as the LDTM/ODTM

test.

A. TEST SPECIMEN

i See Subsection II-A, main text.


" i

1975003956-055

B. IMPLEMENTATION

1. Longitudinal Test Setup

See Subsection II-B-1, main text, and Fig. B-I.

2. Lateral Test Setup

None.

3. Test Levels

All test runs on the ODTM/RL were made at 1/3 TA level or an input

of 0.5 g (peak) over a frequency range of 7 to Z00 Hz.

4. Vibration Control

See Subsection II-B-4.

5. Data Recording, Reduction

The allocation of dynamic recording channels is shown in Table B-l.

As with the LDTM/ODTM test, the 274 output signals were recorded

on electromagnetic tape for all test runs. Forty-eight channels of control

and housek_:,':ping data were recorded in real time display on oscillographs

for each test run.

The data reduction immediately following the rigid lander testing was

to have been accomplished at the 914 data reduction facility. Format was to

be as noted in Subsection IH-A. Because of the limitations noted in Subsec-

tion I!I-A, it was necessary to playback the strain-gage data on slow-speed

oscillographs and manuatly reduce the data using rulers, engineers, and

many hours. Although arduous, the structural loads derived in this manner

,-,re accurate and contributed significantly to confidence in the test.

X-Y plots of the more critical control channels were furnished by 914

on a piecemeal basis. The first complete set of 36 plots, free from errors,

was received approximately one week after delivery of the tapes to 914.

Measurement assignments and patch sheets are included in Appendix C.

48 JPL Technical Memorandum 33-689t

t

1975003956-056

6. Test Run Summary

Test sequence and run parameters are shown in Table B-Z. A total

of 15 separate test runs were made on the ODTM/RL during the period of

October Z6, 1973, through October 30, 1973. As with forced vibration

tests of this type, test runs required only a few minutes whereas preparation

for the test required hours.

IV. DISCUSSION OF TEST RESULTS

A. COMPARISON %VITH RESPONSE ANALYSIS

Examination of Tables B-3 and B-4 will show that the test correlation

with the response analysis of the ODTM/RL combination was excellent.

This is especially true since the characteristics of the 36-channel peak

select control system were not included in the response analysis.

In general, the frequency correlation was very close, often within a

Hertz or less. The measured loads tended to be slightly higher than the

predicted values.

Table P '. Recordin_ chanuel capability,

_pe recorder alloc_tti.on

Peak sele

Data Peak Compo- Timing House-nent refer- Total

user _aput Response limit keepingcontrol control response ence

ODTM/ i2 24 Z3 66 I0 264

RL (TRI) a (TR2,3,4) (78)IZ9

(140)

Test Z 8 10

facility (TR4) (TR4)

Total 12 Z4 23 195 I2 8 274

aparentheses indicate tape recorder assignment.

JPL Technical Memorandum 33-b89 49

1975003956-057

i I I o I o o t

_ o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o


1975003956-058

Table B-3. ODTM/RL forced vibration test comparisonof control channels

Predicted

Approximate byRun Frequency, Control analysis Comments aNo.

HzYes No

105 200-35 All control acceler- X

ometers except 5, 6

35 Control No. 5 X (1}

33 Control No. 6 X

30 Control No. 11 X

28 Control No. 8 X

26 Control No. 6 X

25 Control No. 1 X

23 Control No. 6 X

106-2 23 Control No. 1 X

22- 18 Control No. 6 X

18- 13 295-S Bedframe X (2), (3)


107-2 16 295-S Bedframe X {2)


12 355-S Siamese tab X

11-8 Control No. 1 X (4)

8-7-8 Control No. 7 X

8-11 Control No. 1 X {4}

12 355-S Siamese tab X

a(1) Bus main longeron stress control predicted at 34.4 to 35.0 Hz.Maximum stress reached 80% of peak select stress at 36 Hz.

(2) Bedframe predicted to be within 2% of controlling; i.e., at 98% oflimit level.

(3) Solar panel outrigger stress control predicted at 13.77 to 13.83 Hz.

(4) Bus main longeron stress control predicted at 8.74 to 8.76 Hz.


1975003956-059

I Table B-4. Typical ODTM/RLloads derived from strain-gage measurements, corn

Comparison set I Cor._parison

Member Frequency, Hz Load, N (ib) Frequency, Hz

Analysis Measured Analysis Measured Analysis Measured Ana

VLCA

752 13 12 3110 (700) 6000 (1350) 17 18-19 2670753 9 9 4140 (930) 4000 (900) 15 15 3560755 12 12 3690 (830) 5430 (1220) -- _ --

Upper plane truss727 13 13 1110 (250) 670 (150) 14 14 580730 8 8 1780 (400) 1510 (340) 15 15 440732 .......742 9 9 I160 (260) 1200 (270) 13 15 1020

Main longeronUpper

808 9 9 2800 (630) 3250 (730) 12 12 2670837 9 9 3830 1860) 4000 (900) 12 12 2670818 9 9 3420 (770) 3200 (720) 13 12 2800828 8 8 3690 (830) 3650 (820) 12 12 3110806 .... 12 12 6360

Lower

835 .... 12 12 6540816 .... 13 12 5340

Lower diagonal839 12 12 2800 (630) 3020 (680) 15 15 2580830 13 13 1330 (300) 1160 (260) 15 15 2670

Bedframe

660 7-16 7-16 756 (170) Low -- - --664 18 13 2540 (570) 2400 (540) 18 18 2540

Propulsion moduleSide bipodsP41 13 IZ 7250 (1630) 8980 (2020) 14 14 6230P36 12 12 7700 (1730) I0,720 (2410) 13 13 5780P04 12 13 5780 (1300) 7780 (1750) 14 14 5340

Top bipods

- • 7 12 12 4450 (1000) 6980 (1570) 16 18 3870- P03 12 12 1960 (440) 630 18 18 4230

Connectors

PI8 7-8 7-8 2670 (600) 2800 (830) 14 13 4090P08 13 13 2670 (600) 3900 (880) 13 14 2670P43 13 13 580 (130) 620 (140) -- -- _

V-S/C =A

686 9 8 2220 (500) 3830 (860) 12 12 4140

687 9 8 2400 (540) 3910 (880) 12 12 3870688 8, 9 8 1910, (430, 4670 (1050) 12 12 5920

2800 630)

FOL.oOUTFRAM£FOLuTJPL Technical Memorandum 33-689

1975003956-060

easurements, comparison with analytical predictions, 1/3 TA input, Z-axis, 8- 40 Hz

Comparison set 2 Comparison set 3J

ency, Hz Load, N (Ib) Frequency, Hz Load, N (ib)Measured Analysis Measured Analysis Measured Analysis Measured

i

18-19 2670 (600) 4000 (900) 24 22 3110 (700) 3690 (830)15 3560 (800) 3960 (890) 24 22 4000 (900) 3420 (770)- -- - 20 22 3250 (730) 2890 (650)

14 580 (130) 670 (150) 22 ZZ 3250 (730) 2000 (450)15 440 (I00) Low 23 23 2490 (560) 2050 (460)- -- -- 22 Z2 2670 (600) 2580 (580)15 1020 (230) 1250 (280) 33 23 490 (1I0) Low

12 2670 (600) 4890 (II00) 24 23 2540 (570) 3110 (700)12 2670 (600) 4000 (900) 19 19 2540 (570) 3110 (700)IZ 2800 (630) 3380 (760) 24 22 3110 (700) 3200 (720)12 3110 (700) 3560 (800) 22 22 1780 (400) 1600 (360)12 6360 (1430) 10,850 (2440) 21 19 3380 (760) 2300 (520)

12 6540 (1470) 9340 (2100) 20 19 890 (200) Low12 5340 (1200) 8140 (1830) Z0 19 1330 (300) 1070 (240)

'5 2580 (580) 2620 (590) ZO 21 1600 (360) 980 (220)15 2670 (600) 1600 (360) Z2 21 1330 (300) 1380 (310)

- - - Z0 ZZ 2540 (570) 2400 (540)18 2540 (570) 2800 (630) ....

14 6230 (1400) 6810 (1530) ....13 5780 (1300) 6850 (1540) 24 22 4890 (II00) 5960 (1340)14 5340 (1200) 6540 (1470) 23 22 5470 (1230) 8450 (1900)

18 3870 (870) 6490 (1460) -- -- -- ""18 4230 (950) (1040) ....

13 4090 (920) 4630 (880) ....

14 2670 (600) 3600 (810) 23 22 2220 (500) 3900 (880)- - - 23 23 580 (130) 890 (ZO0)

IZ 4140 (930) 4230 (950) 13,16 14 3670,236012 3870 (870) 3690 (830) 12,13 14 3670,2540 (870,530) 2980 (670)(870,570) 4180 (940)

12 5920 (1330) 5070 (1140) 12 15 5920 (1330) 5600 (1260) '

t

: FOI._IjT._ FRI_CEDINOPAOE BLANK NOT FILMED 53 "

1975003956-061

I ,

T ._

• _ ...... ., -,--_/

_ ,\

Z

: If

/

Fig, B-I. Viking 2975 ODTM/RL longitudinal (Z) ax_ test setup

_PL Technical Momorandum 33-689 __/i_'0 PAGE BLAN/¢ NOT Pl/_p_ 55

t

_r

!,

,h

APPENDIX C

MEASUREMENT ASSIGNMENT SHEETS AND PATCH ASSIGNMENTS !:

_

g

: i

i PP.ECEDINGPAGE BLANK NOT FILMF._

i

!i JPL Technical Memorandum 33-689 57

1975003956-063

LDTM INSTRUMENTATION PATCH, 7-AXIS

TAPE RECORDER _ CONTROLMEAS. RANGE '_ REMARKS

NO. F.S. (PK.) 1.4 78 140 _ (_" PK. SEL. PK. LIM.Oa

3E-052 2 6.79 GP 8, 54 GP Control Response (limiting)

073 3.99 GP 5.02 GP

082 3.17 GP 6.2_ GP

301 6.23 GP 7.84 GP

311 6. 75 GP 8. 5 GP

Dsb328 500 Uin./in. 278 _in./in 350 _ in./in.

D$-329 500 _in./in. 325 _in./in 409 _in./in.

DS-330 500 ,=in./in. 27O _in./in. 340 _ln./In.

DE-_)9 2. 23 GP 2.80 GP

DS-332 520 uin./in. 655 uin./in.

DS-333 234 _in./in 294 _in./in.

111A 5-10 'PL Reference accelerometcr

DE-076 6 5.02 GP Peak Limit (Abort)

199 5.02 GP

079 I 6.28 GP

074 1, 6 GP

304 7, 84 GP

310 7. 84 GP

049 8. 54 GP

D$-331 1000 uin./in, 575 u in,/in

DE-307 7.84 GP

312 2.86 GP

308 8. 5 GP

043 I0 Component Response

081 10 Analytical Comparbon Group

064 I0

070 10

313 30

319 30

III-A 5-10 IPL Reference Accelerometer

DE-044 I0 Component Re=pome

045 I0

050 10

051 I0

IA_leaom_mr.

bsm/a gage.JPL 13118 |/73

58 3PL TechnicalMemorandum 33-689

Lk

1975003956-064

LDTM INSTRUMENTATION PAT(;tl, Z-AXIS (cGntd)

TAPE RECORDER _ CONTROLMEAS. RANGE'¢ REMARKS

NO. F.S. (PK.) 1-4 78 140 _ o,- PK. SEL. PK. Eta.O

DE-058 10 6 Component Response

062

063

065

066

071

072

083

075

037

08O

081

200

103

106

107

108

115

121

122

123

148

149

150

534

635

636

302

305

309

312

314 30

315 10

316 30

317 30 tJPL 1305 8/73


k

1975003956-065

LDTM INSTRUMENTATION PATCH, Z-AXIS (contd

MEAS. RANGE TAPE RECORDER CONTROLREMARKS

NO. F.S. (PK.) PK.SEL. PK. ElM.

DE-318 10 Component response

320 30

321 10

322 30

323 30

324 10

325

326

327

340

407

4O9

501 30

502 10

503

5O4

507

508

DE-509

JPL t31BB|/?3

60 ffPL, Technical Memorandum 33-689

j

1975003956-066

LDTM INSTRUMENTATION PATCH, X AND Y AXES

MEAS. RANGE TAPE RECORDER CONTROLREMARKS

NO. F.S. (PK.) PK. SEL. PK. LIM.

DEa-050 2 1o13 g 1.43 g Cool, o| Pcs ponse (limiting)

2

2

2

2

2 ,:

10

5

5

10

Dsb-330 500/ain./in. _70 uin./in. 340 _in./_n.

rPLPtfercnee Force Gage

DE-077 2 1.43 g Peak Limit (Aboct) :

2

10

5

10

5

500 _in./in. 350 _in./in.

DE-066 Analytical Comparison Group

DE- 043 Component Input

aAcceleromemr,

bs_ain gage.JP_. 131B6 11/'/3

JPL Technical Memorandum 33-689 _,I

1975003956-067

LDTM INSTRUMENTATION PATCIT, X AND Y AXES (contd)

TAPE RECORDER _ CONTROLMEAS. RANGE

q. REMARKSNO. F.S. (PK.) 14 78 140 _ o " PK. SEL. PK. LIM.O

DE-054 6 Component ]npu'. ,,

O58

059

O60

061

O62

O63

O64

O65

07O

O%

072

073

079

121

122

123

137

140

141

143

!44

148

i49

150

175

176

17'7

610

611

612

634

635

636

304

JPL 13M6 11/73

62 jr,, Technical Memorandum 33-689

] 975005956-068

LDTM INSTRUMENTATI()N PATCtl, X AND Y AXES (contd)

TAPE RECORDER _ CONTROLMEA& RANGE..... _ _ "'- REMARKS

NO. F.S. (PK.) 1.4 78 140 _) _ " PK.SEL. PK. ElM.,,, 0

"" -313 6 Component Input

314

316

317

318

322

323

324

325

326

321

086

087

342

106

_ 107 .jl

108 ,

m

JPL tie 8/73


1975003956-069

ODTM INSTRUMENTATION PATCH, Z-AXIS

MEAS. I RANGE TAPE RECORDER ! CONTROL

ff REMARKSNO. F.S. (PK.) 1.4 78 140 _ _" PK. SEE PK. LIM.o

1-A a 10 G 1 J 1.8 G I0, 0 G Inout Controls

2-, 1 ¢a-A 1 ¢

4-^ z /

s-A z ¢

6-,, _ ¢

7-a z e'

8-A 1 i/

9.-A I _/

zo-, z ¢

II-A 1 /

Z2-A Z /

MMA 2 /

2 ¢

2 ¢

2 /

2 /

2 ¢

.... 2 r/

2 ¢

2 /

2 ¢

28S-S b 10. 0 KSI 3 _/ 6. 9 KSI 9. 9 KSI Bedframe 660

289-S 3 / Bedftame 660

294-S 3 ,/ __dframe _4 :l

295-S 3 V/ t Bedf_ame _ (_64

12_-S 3 _/ 3.5 KSI 5. i KSI Upper plane truss 726I !

129-s 3 / _ I up.o=plane_u. 72_140-S 3 / 4. 1 KSI 5.9 KSI Upper plane truss '730

| !

141-S 3 _/ _ I Upper plane truss '730

134-S 20 KSI 3 v/ 7, 2 KSI , 10, 4 KSI ..Up_vetvlane Izuss '/28! !

aAccelerometer. _"

bstraia gage.

JPL 1315 8173


1975003956-070

I

i

ODTM INSTRUMENTATION PATCH, Z-AXiS (contd)

MEAS. RANGE TAPE RECORDER CONTROL REMARKSNO. F.S. (PK.) PK.SEE. PK. LIM. •

10-S 20 KSI q. 2 KSI 10. 3 KSI VLCA 753

12-S VLCA 753 :

137-S 10. 0 KSI 9. 9 KS' Upper plane truss 728 =

V-S/C-A "urnc

563-P Oxidizer tank j?ressure

564-P Fuel tank j?ressureShakerhead Housekeeping ;

Armature

PA input

Servo input

Master '

Slave I I

58-S 15 KSI-200 % 808

59-S 808

60-S 808 i

560-S 837

561-S 837

562-S 837

75-S 818

76-S 813

77-S 818

91-S 828[-

92-S 828

93-S 828

302-S 20 KSI _ 12.0 KSI Primarytrussbipod H P03I

304-S 12.0 KSI P03

310-S 12.0 KSI Pll

312-S 12.0 KSI Pll

318-S 12.0 KSI 1"37

320-S 12.0 KSI P37

346-S 15 KSI-200 pressurant tank P28

347-S P28

348-S P28

349- S P28

e Pressure transducer.

JPL 1305 8/7_


r %" :

1975003956-071

ODTM INSTRUMENTATION PATCH, Z-AXIS (contd

TAPE RECORDER _, CONTROLMEAS. RANGE REMARKSNO. F.S. (PK.) 1.4 78 140 (]D _" PK. SEL. PK.LIM.0

tlelium prcssurant tank342-5 15 KSI-200 */ support P82

343-5 v/ P82

344-5 ¢' P82

345-5 / P82

131-5 10 KSI ,/ 7.0 KSI upper plane truss 727

132-5 6 KSI-200 ,/ '/27

,/ 727133-5

1-S 20 KSI _/ 13.5 KSI VLCA 750

2-5 _/ 13.5 KSI 750

3-S et 13.5 KSI 750

7-S / 11. 0 KSI 752

8-S / 11.0 KSI 752

9-S 15 KSI-200 ,/ 752

533-S ,/ _¢an platformmagona_ support 182

534-5 ¢ z82535-S ¢t 182

536-5 ,/ 183

537-5 / 183

538-5 / 183

138-S ,/ Upper plane mass 728

139-S / 72S

145-S 20 KSI ,/ 14.0 KSI 732

146-5 15 KSI-200 ,/ 732

350-S 6 KSI-500 ,/ Helium pressuranttank supra rt P32

351-5 ¢' P02

352-5 _/ P49

353-5 ,/ Shear link P47Scan platform

539-5 15 KSI-200 / lateral brace 181

540-5 ¢' Scan platformlateral brace 18_

[ 541-5 */ Seaa platform_Imb_ll sunnort lqR

542-5 ¢' 176

543-5 _/ 177

544-s ¢ 177

13-A 10 G / Bus comer longeron

IS-A ¢ , .JPL 1385 8/73

66 ffPL Technical Memorandum 33-689

1975003956-072

ODTM INSTRUMENTATION PATCH, Z-AXIS (contd)

TAPE RECORDER _ CONTROLMEAS. RANGEq. REMARKS

NO. F.S. (PK.) 1-4 78 140 (l:J L__ PK.SEL. PK. ElM.0

16-A 10 G _/ Bus Comer longeron

17-A /

ZS-A /

z9-A /

20-A /

2Z-A /

22-A _/ Power regulator

23-A _/

24-A J

25-A ¢ DSS

26-A ;/ FDS

27-A ,/ Scan platfom} VIS

28-A ,/{29-A /

3O-A /

34-A /

35-A _/

36-A ¢

32-A _/ MAWD

83-A ;/

40-A _/

41-A _/

42-A _/

37-A _/ IRTM

38-A /

39-/ /

_-A / Solar panels Outriggers

44-A ¢'

¢5-A /

46-A /

47-A ¢

48-A ¢

49..A J

50-A ¢

51-A /JPL 1385S/73

JPL TechnicalMemorandum 33-689 67

1975003956-073


TAPE RECORDER _ CONTROLMEAS. RANGEff REMARKS

NO. F.S. (PK.) 14 78 14o _ _ _ PK,SEL. PK. ElM.O

52-A 10 G _/ Solar panels Outriggers

53-A 30 G _/ Panel tip

54-A 100 G _/ Panel tip

55-A 100 G _/ Panel edge

56-A 100 G /

5%A I00 G _/

59-A 30 G _/ Outboard hinge

60-A 30 G _/

61-A 30 G /

62-A 30 G /

63-A 30 G / Relay antenna

64-A 30 G _/

65-A 30 G _/

66-A 30 G / Central location

Propulsion Fuel tank tab67=A I0 G / module

68-A /

69-A /

70-A / PCA_Z-A /

_2-A /

_Z-A /

74-A /

7S-A /

76-A J

7'I-A /

7S-A /

82-A / pm8Z-A /

84-A 30G /

8S-A zoG ¢

8S-A zo_ /

87-A 30G /

88-A 10 G v/ PMD

Sg-A /

90-A _/

9Z-A /JPL 1365 8/73


1975003956-074


TAPE RECORDER _ CONTROLMEAS. RANGE• ;_'_ REMARKS

NO. F.S. (PK.) 14 78 14o _ _ P PK.SEL. PK. ElM.0

92-A 10 G v/ Pr optfl_ion PMDmoclule

" 93-A J

94-A J REA

95-A _/

9_-A 30 G J _"

97-A 10 G _/ Bus

98-A 10 G .....w/

I

t

!

JPL13B6 8/73

JPL TechnicalMemorandum 33-689 69

I

1975003956-075

ODTM INSTRUMENTATION PATCH p X AND "V AXES

MEAS. RANGE TAPE _'_ECORDER _qlPCONTROL

REMARKSI gET

I L__ PK.SEE. PK. ElM.NO. F.S. (PK.) 1-4 78 140 _ 0=

I-A a 5.0 1 ,/ 1, 5 4, 0 Input control

2-A i /

a-A 1 ¢4-A 1 ¢

_-A 1 ¢

S-A 1 ¢

7-a 1 V'

s-a 1 ¢'

9-A z ¢'

10-A 1 ,/

l:-a Z ¢'B

:>A _ : ¢MMA 2 V/

2 ,,'

2 ¢

2 ¢'

e v'

2 ,/

2 v'

2 ¢

2 ,/

2 ¢'

2 ¢

2 ¢

288-S 10 KSI 3 v/ 6, 9 KSI 9. 9 KSI Bedframe 660

289-S 3 v/ Bedframe 660

290-S 3 v/ Bedframe 660

58-S 3 V/ 3, 7 KSI 5.2 KSI Main longeron 808

59-S 3 _/ Main longeron 808

60-S 3 v/ Main lonseron 808

75-S 3 _/ Main longeron 818

'/6-S 3 t/ Main longeron 818 o

77-S _ 3 ¢' Main longeron 818 ;

336-S 5 KSI 3 ! vI I. 6 KSI 2, 3 KSI Propulsion module bottom connectorP4,3

176-S 10 KSI 3 Vt 6. 7 KSI 9. 5 KSI Bus ring 484

_Aeeelerometer.Strain gage. _ ....

JPL 131B5 8173


,- k

1975003956-076

ODTM INSTRUMENTATION PATCH, X AND Y AXES (contd)

TAPE RECORDER _ CONTROLMEAS. RANGE'_ REMARKS

NO. F.S. (FK.) 1.4 78 140 _) _" PK.SEE. PK, ElM.O

3 V/ Armature current

193-S I0 KSI 4 6.7 KSI Busring 620

563-P 4 Oxidizer tank pressure

564-P 4 Fuel tank pressure

4 Armature current /,11

4 Armature current ¢i12

4 Armature current #13

4 Armature current h14

4 Power amplifier input

4 Servo input

4 Master

4 Slave

Main longeron .EL560-S 10 KSI / 5.2KSI S_ction A 837

561-S 6 KSI-500 t/ 837

562-S I0 KSI / 5.2 KSI 837

91-S I0 KSI / 5.2 KSI 828

92-S 6 KSI-500 / 828

93-S 10 KSI / 5.2 KSI 828

94-S 15 KSI-200 / Main longeronSectionq3 - -- 830

95-S 10 KSI / 8.0 KSI 830

96-S 15KSI-200 v/ 830

551-S 10 KSI / 8.0 KSI 830

301-S 24 KSI-200 / P03

302-S 20 KSI ¢t 12.0 KSI P03

303-S 24 KSI- 200 I/ P03

304-S 20 KSI / 12.0 KSI Primary truss blpod H P03 _

309-S 24 KSI-200 _/ Pll

310-S 20 KSI / 12.0 KSI PII

311-S 24 KSI-200 / PI1

312,-S 20 KSI _/ 12.0 KSI PI1

346-S 15 KSI-200 V' Helium pressurant P28__ tank sugport

347-S ¢' P28

348-s / p2s

349-S _/ P28

342-s I/ P82

I I i i * a

JPL 13B§ 8/73


1975003956-077

ODTM INSTRUMENTATION PATCH, X AND Y AXIS (contd)

TAPE RECORDER _ CONTROLMEAS. RANGE

'_ REMARKSNO. F.S. (PK.) 1-4 78 140 _ _ " PK.SEE. PK. ElM.O

344-s / P82

345-S v/ P82

131-S 6 KSI..500 ¢, Upper plane truss 727

132-S 6 KSI.500 _/ Upper Diane _'USS 327

,33-s / _ 727l-S 20 KSI / 13.5 KSI VCLA 750

2-S ,/ 13, 5 KSI 750

3-S / 13.5 KSI 750

7-S 15 KSI-200 Vt 752

s-s / 752

9-s / 7_2Scan platform

533-S ¢' diagonal support 182

534-S / 182 :

535-S / 182

536-S i/ 183

537-S 15 KSI-200 / 183

538-S / 183

= 138-S l '/ Upper plane truss 728

139-S [ / 728

145-S _ 732

146-S v/ 732

Heliu' pressurant350-S 6 KSI-200 ¢' tanl, support P32

351-S ,/ P02

352-S / P49

353-S / Shear link P47

, Scan platform 181539-S 15 KSI-200 _ lateral brace

540-S / _ 181Scan platform

541-S / _imbal support 176

542-S Vt 176

543-S ,/ 177

5,_.-s / 177

13-A 10 G / Bus Corner longeron

14-A /

15-A /

16-A ,/

--^ I /3PL t'm6 0/73


1975003956-078

ODTM tNSTRUMENTATION PATCH, X AND Y AXES contd)

TAPE RECORDER _ CONTROLMEAS. RANGE { ff REMARKSNO. F.S. (PK.) 1.4 78 140 _ L_" PK. SEE PK. ElM.

0 ....

18-A 10 G / ]

19-A ¢• L

20-A f

21-A _/ Bus Corner long.eron ..

22-A / Power regulator

2_-A ¢

2,l-A /4

25-A / Dss

26-A i ¢ _'DSI

27-A _/ Scan platform V'S

2S-A /I

29-A /

3O-A /

3_-A /

34-A /.% - ,w_

35-A ¢

36-A /

32-A ¢¢ MAWD

33-A _/

40-A /

41-A /

42-A I/

37-A / IRTM

38-A ¢

:_9.-A ¢

43-A ,/ Solar panels Outriggers

44-A /

4S-A ¢

4e-A ¢

47-A _/

4S-A ¢

49-A _/

5o-A ¢51-A _/

52-A ¢

53-A 30 G / . Panel tipJPL 116 an3

31=LTechnical Memorandum 33-689 73

1975003956-079

ODTM INSTRUMENTATION PATCH, X AND Y AXES (contd)

TAPE RECORDER _ CONTROLMEAS. RANGE'_ REMARKS

NO. F.S. (PK.) 1.4 78 1140] _ _" PK.SEL. PK. UM.1 I o

59-A 30 G v/ Outboard hinge

SO-A /

61-A ,/

62-A _/ Solar panels Outboard hinge

63-A _/ Relay antenna

64-A /

65-A ¢

66-A _/ Central location

67-A 10 G _/ Propulsionmodule Fuel tank tab

6S.A /

Gg-A /

?0-A / PCA

71-A '/

72-A /

73-A _/

74-A /

7_-A ¢

76-A /

77-A /

78-A ,/

82-A v/ PIA

83-A v/

84-A aoG /

" s_-A _ /v

86-A 10 G _/

87-A 30 G _/

SS-A Z0G ,/ PMD89.-A /

9o-A /

91-A V'

92-A /

9a-A /

96-A 30 G /

97-A 10 G _/ Busg I •

JPL 1rob |173


1975003956-080

ODTM INSTRUMENTATION PATCIt, X AND Y AX['S (colltd)

TAPE RECORDER _, CONTROLMr.-AS. RANGEff REMARKS

NO. F.S. (PK.) 1-4 78 140 _ _" PK.SEL. PK. LIM.O

98-A 10 G _ /

_/ Force No. 11,,,1

_/ Force No. 12

_/ Force No. 13

¢' Force No. 14

I

!

L IJpt t"llll_ 11173 ',"

JPL Technical Memorandum 33-689 75 _, :

t i, . k I

] 975003956-08 ]

ODTM/R1GIDLANDER INSTRUMENTATIONPATCH, Z-AXIS

TAPE RECORDER _ CONTROLMEAS. RANGE _ q, REMARKSNO. F.S. (PK.) 1.4 78 140 _) (Q" PK. SEL. PK. LIM.

0

I-A 1.0 g I _ 0.50 g 0.758 Input Control

2.A I _/

3-A ! _/

4-A I %/

._.A i _/6.t, 1 _/7-A 1 _/

S.A 1 _/

9-A 1 _/

10-A I _/

II.A l x/

12-A I _/ _!

ODTMPeak/ MainLongeron I | 8085&S 5.0 KSi 2 _/ 2.3 KSI 4.0 KSi Select __ Sec ^ -_. ---

59-S 2 _/ 808

60-S ? _/ 2.3 KS! 808

560-S 2 _/ 2.3 KS! 837

561-S 2 _/ 837

562-S 2 x/ 2.3 KS1 837

75-S 2 _/ 2.3 KSI _ 1S

76-S 2 x/ _ J8

77.S 2 _/ 2.3 KS! 818

91.S 2 _/ 2.3 KSI 828

92.S 2 _/ 828

93-S 2 _ 2.3 KSi 828

569.S 3 Run 107.2 _/ 2.5 KS! 3.5 KSi Outriuen 721

268-S 3 354 S _/ 2.3KS! 4.0KS! _/i_'_nn_r_ 809

277.s 3 355s ,/ 23Ks, 40Ks, 83s288-.g 10.0 KS! 3 %/ 3.5 KSI 5.2 KSI Bedframe 660

289-S 3 _/ 660

294.s 3 _/ 664]

_s.s _ _/ 664

336-S 5.0 KSI 3 _/ 1.5 KSI 2.5 XSI _Ol_r.' S/S¢e P43

337-$ 3 _/ P43! I

338.$ I 3 ii'43

JPL 1_m6 1/73

:;' 76 3PL Technical Memorandum 33-689

it

1975003956-082

ODTM/RIGIDLANDER INSTRUMENTATIONPATCH,Z-AXIS (contd)

TAPE RECORDER _ CONTROLMEAS. RANGEq_ REMARKS

NO, F.S. (PK.) 14 78 140 _ (.7" PK. SEL. PK. LIM.O

4 _/ Housekeeping

4 d

4 x/4 d

4 d

563-P 200 PSi 4 _/ Oxidizer Tank Pressure

564-P 200 PSI 4 _/ Fuel Tank PressureRn

566-S 5 KS! 4 3_.S!07-2 _/ 2.5 KS! 3.5 KS! Otttrigsers(Axia_) 712

567.5 4 %/ 706

568.5 4 _/ 708

57o-s 4 %/ 1 1 _lo55.5 6 KSI- 500 %/ Mai,.,Longeron Se¢. A 11 806

56.s d SObS_-S d SOb

lo4.5 %/ b3s

105-5 %/ 835

106.5 %/ 835

72-5 %/ 816

73-5 _/ 816

74-S " 816

88.5 '_ 826

89-5 _' 826

90.5 _/ 826

Q- _u

107-5 I._gSi- 200 %/ MainLonltemn Sec. B 839 .

10s.5 %/ 839

109-5 I %/ 839

11o.5 I %/ s39

9,_ %/ 83o

95-5 %/ 830

9_s %/ s3ossl.5 is_sl.2oo %/ 830

JPL 1386 11/73

JPI., Technical Memorandum 33-689 77

1975003956-083

ODTM/RIGID LANDER INSTRUMENTATION PANEL, Z-AXIS (contd)

MEAS. RANGE TAPE RECORDER CONTROL REMARKSNO. F.S. (PK.) PK.SEL. PK.LIM.

I I

297-S 20.0 KSI 12.0 KSI Primary Truss Blood 1-'-1 P04

298-S 20.0 KSI 12.0 KS1 1 P04

299-S P04

300-S P04

301-S P03

302-S P03

303-S P03

304-S P03

321-S 12.0 KSI P41

322-S 12.0 KSI P41

323-S P41

324-S P41

325-S P40

326-S P40

327-S P40

328-S P40

305-S P12

306-$ PI2

307-S PI2

308-S P12

309-S PI 1

310-S PI 1

311-S PI 1

312-S PI I

313-S P36

314-S P36

315-S P36

316-S P36

317-S P37

318-S P37

319-S P37

320-S P37

332-S 15 KSI- 200 Heavy Connector ["] PI8

Heavy Connector [_] PI815KS1- 200

J°t 1.'_R 8173

';8 ffPI., Techn_.cal Memorandum 33-689

1975003956-084

!


MEAS. RANGE TAPE RECORDER {.CONTROL

REMARKSNO. F.S.(PK.) 1-4 78 140 (_ O _ PK. SEL. PK. ElM.

tl;=

O

334-S 15 KSI- 200 _/ HeavyConnector [""] P!8

335-S X/ Heavy Connector ['-'] P18

291-S X/ Bedframe O 662

292-S x/ 662

293-S x/ 662

285-S x/ 658

286-S x/ 658

287-S x/ ] C) 658

329-s x/ Top Lateral Brace O P08

330-S _/ P08

331-S x/ C) P08

131-S 6 KS1- 500 x/ Upper Plane Truss O 727

132-S x/ 727

133-S x/ 727

128-S _/ 726

129-S x/ 726

130-S x/ 723

149.S x/ 742

150-S x/ 742

151-S X/ 742., ,,.

152-S _/ 746

153-S X] 746

154-S x/ 746

I 0-S x/ 730

141-S ",¢ 730

142-S .- X/ 1 O 730

19-S j' ' V-S/C-A O 686

20-S _/ 686

21-S _ ' 686

22-S 15 KSI- 200 _/ 687

23-S x/ 687

24"S t X/ . 68725.S _/ 688

26-S _/ 688

27-S x/ 688

,'[ ©JPL 138§ 8173


\

1975003956-085

ODTM/RIGID LANDER INSTRUMENTATIONPANEL, Z-AXIS (contd)

TAPE RECORDER _ CONTROLMEAS. RANGE_, REMARKS

NO. F.S. (PK.) 1-4 78 140 _ _" PK. $EL PK. LIM.O

29-S 15 KSI. 200 x/ V-S/C-A O 689

30-S _/ 689

31-S x/ 690

32-S x/ 690

33-S x/ 690

34-S 6 KSI- 500 x/ 691

35-S %/ 691

36-S x/ 691

37-S x/ 692

38-S x/ 692

39-S x/ 692

40-S x/ 69.';

41-S x/ 693

42-S x/ 693 !

43-S x/ 694

44-S X/ 694

45-S x/ 694

46-S x/ 695r

47-S x/ 695

4S-S x/ 695

49-S !5 KSI- 200 x/ 696

50-S %/ 696

51-S X/ 696

52-S 6 KSI- 500 x/ 697

53-S x/ 697

54-S X/ O 697

I-S 15 KSI- 200 x/ VLCA O 750 :

2_S _/ 750 :

3.s x/ 750 :

4-S x/ 751

5-S V 751

6.s V 75l,, ..,

7.S x/ 6.1 KSI 752

S-S x/ 752

9-S _/ 752I

10-S 1 _/ O 753JPL 13e5 8/73

80 JPL Technical Memorandum 33-689 :

1975003956-086

ODTM/RIG1D LANDER INSTRUMENTATION PANEL, Z-AXIS (contd)

TAPE RECORDER _ CONTROLMEAS. RANGE REMARKSNO. F.S.(PK.) 1.4 78 140 _ _" PK. SEE. PK. LIM.

O

I l-S 15 KSI- 200 %/ 6.1 KSI VLCA O 753

12-s x/ 61 KSl 753

13-S %/ 754

14-S x/ 754

15-S %/ 754

163 x/ 755

17-S x/ 755

18.S %/ I O 755

/

136-S 6 KSI- 500 X/ Upper Plane Truss IT 728 "

]

137-S x/ 728

138-S x/ 728

139-S x/ 728

145.S x/ 732

146-S x/ 732

147-S %/ 732 ,_

148-S %/ Run 107-2 iT 732

354.s 20.0 KSI _/ 10.0 KSI 18.0 KSI Siamese Tab /_ B33

355-S %/ B34

356-S _/ B35

357-S 48 KSI- 100 _/ B33A

358-S %/ B34A

359-S x/ ,_ B35A

134-S 6 KSI- 500 %/ Upper Plane Truss (Axial) 728

135-S _/ 728

143-S x/ 732

144-S _x / 1 (Axial) 732

552-S 2000 lb x/ 2000 lb Separation Bolts Upper Plane

553-S X/ "

554-s V{

555.s x/JPL 13aft 8173


1975003956-087


TAPE RECORDER _ CONTRGLMEAS. RANGE REMARKS

O_ PK SEE. ] PK. LIM.NO. F.S. (PK.) !-4 78 140 _ b

556-S 2000 Ib X/ 2000 Ib Separation Bolts Lower Plane

557-S x/

558-s ,/559-S x/

70.A 2.5 g x/ Accelerometers PCA

71-A 1.5 g x/

72-A 3.0 g x/

76-A 2.0 g x/

77-A 1.3 g x/

78-A 2.8 g x/

73-A 2.5 g x/

74-A 1.5 g X/

75-A 3.0g X/

79-A 2.5 g X/

80-A 1.5 g x/

81-A 3.0g X/

99-A 2.5 g X/

100-A 1.5 g x/

101-A 3.0g V85-A 2.6 g X/ VIA

86-A 3.1 g X/

87-A 3.1 g x/

88-A 1.5 g x/ PMD

89-A 2.0 g x/

90-A 3.0 g %/

91-6 1.5 g %/

92.A 2.0 g _/

93-A 3.0 g X/

67-6 1.2 g X/ Fuel Tank Tab

68-6 1.9 g _/

69-A 2.8 g X/

27-A 5.7 g x/ Scan Platform

32-A 8.1 g X/

33-A 5.8 g x/

37-A 5.4 g x/

38-A 6.8 g x/ 1JPL 1385 8/73

82 .rPL Technical Memorandum 33-689

1975003956-088

ODTM/RIGID LANDER INSTRUMENTATIONPANEL, Z-AXIS (contd)

TAPE RECORDER _ CONTROLMEAS. RANGE q, REMARKSNO. F.S. (PK.) 1.4 78 140 _ _, " PK. SEL. PK, LIM.

O

3C3-A 8.5 g x/ Acceleromelers Scan Platform

43-A 1.7 g x/ Outrigger

44-A 3.3 g x/ ]

i

45-A 4.8 g X/1

46-A 1.7 g X/

47-A 5.5 g /

48-A 5.7 g X/

49,A 2.7 g X/I"

50-A 13.5 g X/

5I-A 3.0 g X/

52-A 14.0 g x/

53-A 2.9 g X/ Solar Panels

54-A 5.2 g x/ Solar Panel_

94-A 2.4 g X/ PEA

95-A 3.0g X/

96-A 2.7 g X/

28-A 9.6 g _/ Scan Piatform

29-A 5.6 g _/ Scan Platform

JPL 1385 8/73

EPL Technical Memorandun 33-689 83NASA-JPL-ComI., L. A, Calif.

1975003956-089

Documents

V/k/ng Mars Lander 1975 Dynamic Test Mode//Orb/ter Deve ... · Model Forced Vibration Test Summary Report J. Fortenberry G. R. Brownlee JET PROPULSION LABORATORY CALIFORNIA INSTITUTE